Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Yeah, but what theprestige is saying is, sure, Trump debases and disgraces the office of President with his tweets and demonstrates his unfitness for the office on a daily basis, but that's okay if it pisses off the libs.

It delights me to no end that Trump's legal team knows full well that Trump is pathologically incapable of telling the truth. It further delights me to know that if Trump did tell the truth, that he would probably be in deep ****.

I figure this will wind up with a grand jury subpoena, Trump defying it, and then a SCOTUS ruling which Trump might also defy. That's when we'll learn if the barrel-bottom otherwise known as the GOP-controlled congress is capable of new depths.

Prediction time. *Adjust jacket. Straightens tie. Clears throat*

They are.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

Yeah, but what theprestige is saying is, sure, Trump debases and disgraces the office of President with his tweets and demonstrates his unfitness for the office on a daily basis, but that's okay if it pisses off the libs.

I know. Right?

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

I was sitting in a restaurant and heard some background noise from the TV. "...we'll soon learn what the judges think about Flynn." My ears perked up and I looked for the screen. The Flynn in question is a Bichon Frise. The judges liked him.

Please try harder to stay in the same general area as the topic - which is the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and the investigation. For the avoidance of doubt, President Obama, Mrs Clinton, the general economic policies of the two main American political parties and the framework of decision-making are not on topic.

Nor is insulting each other, whether in English or any other language. So remain civil and polite, report posts that breach the rules without responding or quoting, and stay on topic. Thank you.

I was sitting in a restaurant and heard some background noise from the TV. "...we'll soon learn what the judges think about Flynn." My ears perked up and I looked for the screen. The Flynn in question is a Bichon Frise. The judges liked him.

Do you have a cute picture to illustrate your anecdote?

__________________If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

It's an insane world where... Well, observe: You recognize that legally it's a sensible--a sane!--thing to do. But you are still looking to blame him for doing something wrong.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

I think he should hold himself to the same standards he applies to other people in similar situations.

By his own words, he believes that the only people who plead the Fifth are people who are guilty.

So yes, I would blame him for pleading the Fifth if he is not guilty.

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't give a ****. That wasn't the argument I was addressing.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

We know you don't care whether the President of the United States attacks those who assert their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent.

Some of us do care. Indeed, some of us are inclined to think the fact that so many people don't care about that is a serious problem for the United States and its future as a constitutional democracy.

Originally Posted by theprestige

What you think you know about me is wrong.

One thing I know about you is that, following a series of posts suggesting and explaining why, when it comes to asserting constitutional rights, Trump should be held "to the same standards he applies to other people in similar situations", you said you "don't give a ****."

I also know that, in the Illya Kuryakin thread, you wrote this:

Originally Posted by theprestige

The Left's implicit support of communism, along with their support of any policy that might advance communism, is the only thing keeping me from switching sides. That and all the leftist douchebags I've met on this board.

So I also know you are hardly averse to judging others by what they've written on this board. Indeed, it looks as though you are quite willing to judge others on the basis of things they haven't actually written but you believe they support.

I am not, however, suggesting you should be judged by the same standards you apply to others. That would be just as unfair as suggesting Trump should be judged by the same standards he applies to others.

Originally Posted by theprestige

You still don't understand the actual problem.

What I do understand is that there are quite a few problems related to the topic of this thread. I also understand that ongoing attempts to deny the multiplicity of problems and their reality is one of the primary problems.

Here's another of the problems: Although Trump has a constitutional right to remain silent, and his silence per se would not be held against him in a court of law, exercising that right by refusing to answer Mueller's questions would forgo an opportunity to counter what Mueller is hearing from other witnesses.

We know, for example, James Comey prepared notes shortly after a private conversation with Trump on 14 February 2017. In those notes, Comey alleges Trump urged Comey to drop his investigation of Michael Flynn. (Flynn has, of course, pled guilty to one felony and is now cooperating with Mueller's broader investigation.)

Trump and Comey are the only witnesses to that conversation. If Trump declines to answer Mueller's questions about that conversation, Comey's testimony will continue to be the only evidence Mueller can take seriously concerning the substance of that conversation.

There are likely to be a number of other matters on which Trump is in a unique position to offer evidence that might be useful as a defense for Trump or for his associates. Trump and his lawyers must weigh the value of offering evidence only Trump can provide against risks that have been detailed within this thread.

Generally speaking, a guilty person has little to gain by answering questions (because truthful answers wouldn't help) and much to lose (because untruthful answers would be yet another crime).

For persons who are not guilty, the decision may not be as easy. There is something to gain, but there is also something to lose.

Trump has proclaimed his openness and willingness to talk to Mueller. The cynical among us might think Trump has done that only to bolster his assertions of innocence, relying on his lawyers to persuade him not to answer. After all, Trump also proclaimed his willingness to release his tax returns just as soon as his lawyers say it's okay for him to do so.

Trump has attacked others for exercising their constitutional right to remain silent. It would be unfair to attack Trump for doing the same thing.

But it is not unfair to decry Trump's attacks upon constitutional rights, and it is not unfair to highlight Trump's hypocrisy when he does what he has attacked others for doing.

OK everyone, shhhh, ixnay on the eaplay, let's wait and see what applecorped says...

Any arrests yet? Har har har

__________________All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

Mueller has indicted attorney Alex Vanderswan. He was a lawyer who represented a Ukrainian ministry. He is charged with lying to the FBI.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Ru

Zwaan is the son-in-law of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin that it's alleged Trump arranged to meet to discuss his run for presidency at the 2013 Miss Universe competition in Russia.

[nitpick]His surname is Van der Zwaan.

He's a Dutchman working for a London law firm, and in 2012, he compiled a report which defended Yanokovich' handling of the prosecution of Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Timoshenko for corruption. Somehow the report only cost $12k, though the law firm also received $1m a year later

__________________"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.